Painting a dark picture of a people: "Gypsy Children", 1855, by August von Pettenkofen

Debates about immigration have come to focus more and more on the Gypsies, or Roma as it is now fashionable to call them. In fact, the name "Gypsy" has a long pedigree and tells us something important about who they have thought themselves to be. For the whole question of who they are needs to be explained. The public is almost as puzzled by the Gypsies today as it was when they first arrived in western Europe early in the 15th century. It has not been easy for a settled population to make sense of other people who have chosen a nomadic way of life.

Whereas the Jews have placed a strong emphasis on literacy and now have historians aplenty, the Gypsies can offer few voices to speak for their history. This means that the best way to examine their past is to look at how people in western Europe have reacted to their presence. One cannot always learn much from this about the true history of the Gypsies, but one can learn a great deal about the fears and surprise felt by the settled population of Europe. It is a complex history in which prejudice and persecution have been mixed with sympathy and support. No one now doubts that they originated in medieval India, though when they left there is uncertain; it is also uncertain how long or by what routes they meandered through Persia and the Middle East before arriving in Europe. Physical appearance is a poor guide, but when they first arrived several uncomplimentary writers in Germany commented on how dark they were. Better evidence is provided by their language, though it takes the form of many divergent dialects — still, the roots of Romany speech undoubtedly lie in the Indo-Aryan languages of medieval India, with layers of Persian, Greek and other languages that added a rich vocabulary as the Gypsies passed out of Asia into southeastern Europe, where they lived during the 14th century.

Gypsies began to enter western Europe itself from 1400 onwards. No one knows why they moved out of the Balkans; maybe the Turkish invasions that were then taking place disrupted their life, which became increasingly mobile. Their entry into western Europe was accompanied by elaborate tales about why they had arrived. They came to Hildesheim in Saxony in 1407; they called at the office of the town clerk, where they presented mysterious letters of accreditation, and they were given alms. Notwithstanding this act of generosity, they were treated with suspicion and were placed under armed guard. The distance between offering protection and ensuring segregation was not a vast one. Equally the distance between free gifts of alms and donations of protection money in the hope that they would move on was not vast.

These nomads were well-organised, led by people whom chroniclers called their "dukes" and "counts". A German chronicler of the early 15th century insisted on the novelty of the Gypsies: "something foreign never seen before". They arrived in Germany and Switzerland from lands farther to the east; they travelled in columns, some on foot and some on horseback, and would spend the night outside the city walls, which suited them better since they were (the chronicler insisted) thieves and were afraid of being arrested if they lingered within the walls. Numbers were not vast: three hundred here, a hundred there, male and female, in addition to their children. They were described as being "as black as Tartars", an odd statement, since Tartars are not black. Yet the same chronicler insisted on a link between their supposedly unpleasant appearance and what he thought to be their evil character. The demonisation of the Gypsies had begun.

To Anonymous
No you cant point that out.. I have read this article a few times and nowhere do I agree with you. I have come to the conclusion the author IS NOT A RACIST but presenting credible quotations and facts. If you have a personal vendetta against the author leave it off these pages. In addition many of us are tired of hearing only from Leftist, intellectual self serving, posh and hypocritical Guardian and BBC supporters...The article was informative, balanced and full of insights from all perspectives...Leave it to the reader to judge and keep your character assasinating views off these pages. Shameful!

Anonymous

December 28th, 201312:12 AM

Could I just point out that the author is clearly a racist, as he has accused the Gypsies (he actually uses that word) of lying (“elaborate tales”, “elaborated the story of their origins”), imposing themselves on the hospitality of others by deceit (“studied the societies they encountered with some care, and they made an effort to present themselves ... as devout Christian pilgrims”, “an identity [Egyptian] they seized upon, for the name had positive connotations”, “passed themselves off as Greek Christians”), and forgery (“letters of protection apparently issued by several princes”, “mysterious letters of accreditation”, “The pope supposedly issued letters in their favour”).
He also acts as an apologist for the evil, racist Europeans, suggesting that they treated the strangers “humanely”, acted with “Christian generosity” (“gifts of alms”), and were willing clients for Gypsy - sorry, Roma - fortune-tellers (“an attraction to the Parisian public”). He repeats several accounts, which the naive reader might unfortunately find credible, complaining “that the Gypsies had sustained themselves not from honest crafts but from begging, stealing and fortune-telling”, and that they were “skilled thieves, especially the women, whose stolen goods sustained the men”; and he suggests that they extorted “protection money”.
I’m afraid that tacking on a few hackneyed denunciations of the dreadful European oppressors doesn’t cancel out the main points of his article. He should be shunned by all bien pensant people and rendered unemployable (at least by the Guardian or the BBC).

Post your comment

Your name: *

E-mail: *

Comment: *

Subject:

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What is the second word in the phrase "abal xosarar xotubu eruqeho ocebap"?: *